Do you side with the Players or the Owners on the CBA issue?

44Champs · 01-25-2011, 03:11 PM

Note: I've never posted a poll before, so I'm sorry if it doesn't show up in this thread.

Basically, it boils down to the players wanting to make more money (via uncapped salaries),

and

the owners want to keep more of the revenue in their pockets. According to the current CBA, at least 50% of the revenue that owners earn MUST go towards player contracts. With uncapped salaries, that figure could significantly cut into the owner's pockets.

Then you have Roger Goodell telling owners that they need to either upgrade or build new stadiums if they want to host a Superbowl.

NFL Collective Bargaining: Can This Multi-Billion Dollar Giant Be Tamed? | Bleacher Report

Danno · 01-25-2011, 03:17 PM

Both are to blame, but since most will side with players due to their popularity, I voted Owners, just to provide fair balance.

I'd be shocked if owners ever won a single poll over players.

44Champs · 01-25-2011, 03:23 PM

Danno, I voted owners too. The biggest issue that I think needs to be fixed is capping rookie salaries. For a player to sign a $60MM contract before they even set foot on a professional field is absurd. What company would do that in the real working world?

saintfan · 01-25-2011, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by 44Champs

Danno, I voted owners too. The biggest issue that I think needs to be fixed is capping rookie salaries. For a player to sign a $60MM contract before they even set foot on a professional field is absurd. What company would do that in the real working world?

It's a close call, but I'm leaning with the owners, although the players have a number of valid issues too. I also agree that everything else being equal, they have got to do something about the rookie salaries.

papz · 01-26-2011, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by saintfan

It's a close call, but I'm leaning with the owners, although the players have a number of valid issues too. I also agree that everything else being equal, they have got to do something about the rookie salaries.

Neutral for that very same reason. Both sides have valid points... just looking for a median. Like everyone else, the rookie pay scale, the top 7 at least, needs a big adjustment. I'd like to see something like the NBA where they're guaranteed their first 3 years or so... then becoming restricted free agents open for the bidding. If they perform well, they'll get it all back in a short period of time.

AsylumGuido · 01-26-2011, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by 44Champs

Danno, I voted owners too. The biggest issue that I think needs to be fixed is capping rookie salaries. For a player to sign a $60MM contract before they even set foot on a professional field is absurd. What company would do that in the real working world?

The players want to fix the rookie salary as much as the owners. They know that it is unfair for an unproven rookie to be making more than a ten year vet. That isn't that big of an issue. The big issue is taking care of the players after their career is over and being forced to play two more games while having their pay cut.

lynwood · 01-26-2011, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido

The players want to fix the rookie salary as much as the owners. They know that it is unfair for an unproven rookie to be making more than a ten year vet. That isn't that big of an issue. The big issue is taking care of the players after their career is over and being forced to play two more games while having their pay cut.

Taking care of players after their career? Try a 401k or a savings account like the rest of us. I have no problem with these guys making millions but to want liftime medical on top of it? C'mon man

AsylumGuido · 01-26-2011, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by lynwood

Taking care of players after their career? Try a 401k or a savings account like the rest of us. I have no problem with these guys making millions but to want liftime medical on top of it? C'mon man

Here's where you are totally off base. A relatively small percentage of players make "millions" of dollars. The vast majority make closer to league minimums and only play for a handful of years. The players that need taken care of aren't the superstars, but those players from a couple of decades ago that were making not much more than some of us and are basically crippled or suffering from brain damage due to the playing conditions at the time. That not to say that today's players can't suffer the same fate.

You are under the false impression that all NFL players are rich. Nothing could be further from the truth. And the players are not asking for lifetime blanket coverage. All they are wanting is assistance to those suffering from debilitating injuries suffered on the job.

AsylumGuido · 01-26-2011, 03:15 PM

In the 1970's the minimum salary for a rookie was $12,500 and $13,000 for a vet. Veterans were making well under $100K per year in the early 1980's. The strike in 1982 drove up players salaries with the average being $198,000. The minimum remained fairly low, though. It wasn't until the 1990's that minimums started edging up a bit. They reached $200K in 2000 and was $310K last year. Of course, in that bracket, taxes and such eat up close to half.

lynwood · 01-25-2011, 03:49 PM

I voted owners. When it comes down to it all the players need is Health Insurance, salary, and Incentives. When a contract is signed that player is expected to fullfill his end as well as the owner fullfilling his. Playa wanna hold out, Playa don't gets paid! Playa don't wanna go to team that drafts him...playa don't gets paid.

I also don't think that Owners should expect to flip coin for Tax Moneys to be used to build stadiums unless it is on a ballot. I'm for Tax incentives that pretty much any business would get. I am glad that the Saints are Still in New Orleans but I don't understand the state sending Bensen a paycheck every year.

View Poll Results: Do you side with the Owners or the Players on the CBA issue?
OWNERS - they take the risks and drive the business	17	53.13%
PLAYERS - they do all the work on the field and provide the entertainment to the fans	15	46.88%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll

01-25-2011, 03:11 PM	#1
44Champs Site Donor Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 2,589	Do you side with the Players or the Owners on the CBA issue? Note: I've never posted a poll before, so I'm sorry if it doesn't show up in this thread. Basically, it boils down to the players wanting to make more money (via uncapped salaries), and the owners want to keep more of the revenue in their pockets. According to the current CBA, at least 50% of the revenue that owners earn MUST go towards player contracts. With uncapped salaries, that figure could significantly cut into the owner's pockets. Then you have Roger Goodell telling owners that they need to either upgrade or build new stadiums if they want to host a Superbowl. NFL Collective Bargaining: Can This Multi-Billion Dollar Giant Be Tamed? \| Bleacher Report
44Champs Site Donor Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 2,589

01-25-2011, 03:23 PM	#3
44Champs Site Donor Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 2,589	Danno, I voted owners too. The biggest issue that I think needs to be fixed is capping rookie salaries. For a player to sign a $60MM contract before they even set foot on a professional field is absurd. What company would do that in the real working world?
44Champs Site Donor Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 2,589

01-25-2011, 03:32 PM	#4
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by 44Champs Danno, I voted owners too. The biggest issue that I think needs to be fixed is capping rookie salaries. For a player to sign a $60MM contract before they even set foot on a professional field is absurd. What company would do that in the real working world? It's a close call, but I'm leaning with the owners, although the players have a number of valid issues too. I also agree that everything else being equal, they have got to do something about the rookie salaries.

01-26-2011, 11:31 AM	#5
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,768	Originally Posted by saintfan It's a close call, but I'm leaning with the owners, although the players have a number of valid issues too. I also agree that everything else being equal, they have got to do something about the rookie salaries. Neutral for that very same reason. Both sides have valid points... just looking for a median. Like everyone else, the rookie pay scale, the top 7 at least, needs a big adjustment. I'd like to see something like the NBA where they're guaranteed their first 3 years or so... then becoming restricted free agents open for the bidding. If they perform well, they'll get it all back in a short period of time.

01-25-2011, 03:17 PM	#2
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,747	Both are to blame, but since most will side with players due to their popularity, I voted Owners, just to provide fair balance. I'd be shocked if owners ever won a single poll over players.

01-26-2011, 11:00 AM	#6
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,472	Originally Posted by 44Champs Danno, I voted owners too. The biggest issue that I think needs to be fixed is capping rookie salaries. For a player to sign a $60MM contract before they even set foot on a professional field is absurd. What company would do that in the real working world? The players want to fix the rookie salary as much as the owners. They know that it is unfair for an unproven rookie to be making more than a ten year vet. That isn't that big of an issue. The big issue is taking care of the players after their career is over and being forced to play two more games while having their pay cut.

01-26-2011, 11:02 AM	#7
lynwood 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hockley, Tx Posts: 1,515	Originally Posted by AsylumGuido The players want to fix the rookie salary as much as the owners. They know that it is unfair for an unproven rookie to be making more than a ten year vet. That isn't that big of an issue. The big issue is taking care of the players after their career is over and being forced to play two more games while having their pay cut. Taking care of players after their career? Try a 401k or a savings account like the rest of us. I have no problem with these guys making millions but to want liftime medical on top of it? C'mon man

01-26-2011, 02:54 PM	#8
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,472	Originally Posted by lynwood Taking care of players after their career? Try a 401k or a savings account like the rest of us. I have no problem with these guys making millions but to want liftime medical on top of it? C'mon man Here's where you are totally off base. A relatively small percentage of players make "millions" of dollars. The vast majority make closer to league minimums and only play for a handful of years. The players that need taken care of aren't the superstars, but those players from a couple of decades ago that were making not much more than some of us and are basically crippled or suffering from brain damage due to the playing conditions at the time. That not to say that today's players can't suffer the same fate. You are under the false impression that all NFL players are rich. Nothing could be further from the truth. And the players are not asking for lifetime blanket coverage. All they are wanting is assistance to those suffering from debilitating injuries suffered on the job.

01-26-2011, 03:15 PM	#9
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,472	In the 1970's the minimum salary for a rookie was $12,500 and $13,000 for a vet. Veterans were making well under $100K per year in the early 1980's. The strike in 1982 drove up players salaries with the average being $198,000. The minimum remained fairly low, though. It wasn't until the 1990's that minimums started edging up a bit. They reached $200K in 2000 and was $310K last year. Of course, in that bracket, taxes and such eat up close to half.

01-25-2011, 03:49 PM	#10
lynwood 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hockley, Tx Posts: 1,515	I voted owners. When it comes down to it all the players need is Health Insurance, salary, and Incentives. When a contract is signed that player is expected to fullfill his end as well as the owner fullfilling his. Playa wanna hold out, Playa don't gets paid! Playa don't wanna go to team that drafts him...playa don't gets paid. I also don't think that Owners should expect to flip coin for Tax Moneys to be used to build stadiums unless it is on a ballot. I'm for Tax incentives that pretty much any business would get. I am glad that the Saints are Still in New Orleans but I don't understand the state sending Bensen a paycheck every year.